Skip to content


Pennsylvania Vs. West Virginia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number263 U.S. 350
AppellantPennsylvania
RespondentWest Virginia
Excerpt:
pennsylvania v. west virginia - 263 u.s. 350 (1923) u.s. supreme court pennsylvania v. west virginia, 263 u.s. 350 (1923) pennsylvania v. west virginia nos. 15 and 16, orig., october term, 1922 reargued november 20, 1923 decided december 3, 1923 263 u.s. 350 on rehearing decree heretofore made in these cases reaffirmed after rehearing. mr. justice van devanter announced the ruling of the court. an opinion expressing the views of the court in these cases was announced at the last term, and a decree was entered then. 262 u. s. 262 u.s. 553, 623. by the court's leave, given at that term, a petition for rehearing was filed. the cases had been presented in oral argument three times, but three members of the court had.....
Judgment:
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia - 263 U.S. 350 (1923)
U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 263 U.S. 350 (1923)

Pennsylvania v. West Virginia

Nos. 15 and 16, Orig., October Term, 1922

Reargued November 20, 1923

Decided December 3, 1923

263 U.S. 350

ON REHEARING

Decree heretofore made in these cases reaffirmed after rehearing.

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER announced the ruling of the Court.

An opinion expressing the views of the Court in these cases was announced at the last term, and a decree was entered then. 262 U. S. 262 U.S. 553, 623. By the Court's leave, given at that term, a petition for rehearing was filed. The cases had been presented in oral argument three times, but three members of the Court had heard only the last presentation. This, with the importance of the questions involved and the public character of the litigants, led the Court to grant the rehearing. It was had two weeks ago. The cases have been considered again in the light of that presentation, and after this further reflection, the Court perceives no ground for disturbing the

Page 263 U. S. 351

opinion heretofore announced or the decree entered thereon.

Decree reaffirmed.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE did not participate in the consideration of the cases on the rehearing.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS, and MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS dissent, for the reasons given in their dissenting opinions at the last term.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //